FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions

It seems it ought to be fair to ask flight service for the meaning
and interpretation of FARs so pilots have a better chance of complying.

It's not his job to interpret regulations. It's his job to be an expert
on weather.

I understand your point, Roy. But I have had discussions with briefers, on
ocasion, where the discussion has gone something like: Me, "Doesn't look good
between here and there", Him, "it looks like it is lessening to the east, if
you wait half an hour and "fly a curve" it looks better" etc. You may say he
is just giving weather info but I feel we are having a discussion that helps me
reach my decision.


Yes, I've had that too. But in these cases they are still in their area of
expertise (weather) and not legalities. The only time legalities gets into it
is when I ask about "legal alternates". Then they help find alternates that
match the (easy to interpret) legal requirements.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...

I do not mean to be argumentative, but I thought the weather briefer is
part of the flight service system and is thus a representative of the
FAA. It seems it ought to be fair to ask flight service for the meaning
and interpretation of FARs so pilots have a better chance of complying.


Why would flight service have any knowledge in that area?

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

It's not his job to interpret regulations. It's his job to be an expert
on weather.


It's his job to provide weather briefings, I think that falls a bit short of
being an "expert on weather".

"Barry" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Among the cases Scott chronicled is the case of a 135 pilot who launched
in an area of AIRMET forecast icing, did NOT experience icing, but the FAA
still successfully prosecuted a case against him for flying in 'known
Icing.' After you have read the article series, your whole opinion will
change about the legality of and the risks associated with launching into,
and flying at or near the freezing level in such an area.


The subject line refers to Part 91 operations, not Part 135.



There doesn't have to be an FAR specifically addressing flight of a
non-icing certificated bug-smasher into known icing conditions. FAR 91.13
takes care of that.


Only when the life or property of another is endangered.

Only when the life or property of another is endangered.

Ok, I see you'll go that far. I'll go as far as to say that the life or
property of another is rarely not endangered. Not never, just rarely.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

Ok, I see you'll go that far. I'll go as far as to say that the life or
property of another is rarely not endangered. Not never, just rarely.


Then please explain why FAR 91.13(a) states; "No person may operate an
aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or
property of another.", and not, "No person may operate an aircraft in a
careless or reckless manner."

No, I won't explain why it says that. That it says that does not contradict my
contention, which is that most of the time, when flying and deliberately doing
something stupid, you do endanger the life or property of another.

Not all the time. But most of the time.

We can both think of examples where you would not be doing so. But most of the
time, flying an unprotected aircraft in the ice over most ofr the mainland
United States, most of Hawaii, and some of Alaska, there are people and there
is property below you that is endangered.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

No, I won't explain why it says that. That it says that does not
contradict my
contention, which is that most of the time, when flying and deliberately
doing
something stupid, you do endanger the life or property of another.

Not all the time. But most of the time.

We can both think of examples where you would not be doing so. But most
of the
time, flying an unprotected aircraft in the ice over most ofr the mainland
United States, most of Hawaii, and some of Alaska, there are people and
there
is property below you that is endangered.


Then all flight would be in violation of FAR 91.13. Your position is
absurd.

Then all flight would be in violation of FAR 91.13. Your position is
absurd.


No, only flight which is simply careless and reckless would be a violation. As
it stands, flight which is careless and reckless AND endangers people or
property on the ground is in violation. I contend that one is hard put to be
careless and reckless while NOT endangering people on the ground.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)